Introduction
One of the most fruitful challenges posed by Europe is that of languages: we can choose a dominant language—the “Globish” of a globalized Anglo-American world—or we can work to preserve plurality by highlighting the meaning and value of differences. “The language of Europe is translation”: this phrase, uttered by Umberto Eco in two of his lectures, favors the second solution. It brings into play not only what a language is and what Europe is, but also the relationship between language and politics.
To explore this paradoxical cliché, I will draw on the experience of the European Vocabulary of Philosophies: Dictionary of the Untranslatable (Seuil, Le Robert, 2021), which addresses those symptoms of linguistic difference known as the “untranslatables”: not what we do not translate—we translate everything—but what we never cease to [not] translate.
It is a gesture, not a finished work; an energeia rather than an ergon.
This is why I will focus on the ten or so translations—that is, linguistic reinventions—of this itself untranslatable work, to shed light on the singular intention, both philosophical and political, that guides each of them.
I will explore the use of this “method of the untranslatables,” which now guides various practices, ranging from the creation of bilingual glossaries intended for both those who welcome and those who are welcomed, to the ongoing development of a dictionary of the untranslatables of the three monotheistic religions.
Finally, it remains to be examined how artificial intelligence—or the lack thereof—is reshuffling the deck.
How does AI handle untranslatable terms, and could we try to become less foolish together?